Streaming and Politics: Breaking New Ground

In Philadelphia, at the Republican National Convention, a new era in media was born that fundamentally changed the American political landscape. Despite the poor quality of the video images of the political event, Americans were afforded a preview of the profound impact a brand new medium would have on American culture. Streaming media in 2000? No, television in 1948.

Television news organizations gained much of their credibility and influence through their coverage of national political conventions and elections. And many believe that the 1960 presidential race was decided by the telegenic advantage John F. Kennedy enjoyed over Richard Nixon in their televised debates. Today, in pandering to the widest possible television audience, the national political conventions have deteriorated from the raucous political brawls of the past into scripted infomercials. But just as the dynamic relationship between politics and the media seems about to slip into a coma, along comes the Internet and streaming media to bring some life to the party.

This election year, comprehensive coverage by webcasters large and small -- from the relatively high-profile pseudo.com to the "underground" media entities at indymedia.org -- is helping to paint for the Web-viewing public a whole new picture of political conventions. And to believe some of the players in this game, webcasts with a political bent are creating a whole new forum – one that invites more candid participation by the public, and that bends less easily to commercial pressures than does television or even print.

However, few would argue that Web-based political coverage and commentary is immune to the fiscal and logistical realities of broadcasting. Political webcasters face plenty of hurdles in their ascent, and questions about how to differentiate their content from conventional broadcasters and cover their operating costs abound.

Convention Coverage: From Floor to Skybox

Streaming media’s political impact may have risen to new heights at this year's Republican National Convention, but streaming media’s dance with politics didn’t begin at the Philadelphia event. Since 1997, C-SPAN.org has employed the Virage video search engine to offer Campaign 2000, a massive, keyword-searchable video database of speeches and appearances by the presidential candidates. (Campaign 2000 is also syndicated to two dozen additional sites, including ABCNews.com, Yahoo!, and The New York Times.) For this year’s conventions, C-SPAN created a special edition of the search engine to make the gavel-to-gavel coverage searchable by keyword.

As the pool network for both conventions, C-SPAN offers its switched video feed to other broadcast organizations. This year, it’s also streaming video from four isolated cameras inside the hall and one inside the video control room. Viewers can choose their own view of the convention or watch the television broadcast being produced. Akamai is encoding and streaming video, as well as distributing a syndicated switched feed to third-party Web sites. Chris Long, C-SPAN’s director of New Media, explains, "We’re using Akamai as a platform for sites that need a turnkey solution. We’re licensing [those sites] our URLs. They can pull those URLs directly and host C-SPAN coverage on their own Web sites."

While C-SPAN functions as a fly on the wall, Pseudo.com shouts its arrival as a serious media player from its own skybox, a coveted symbol that defines credibility in the world of political media. Pseudo intends to shake things up with a fresh approach to convention coverage. Jeanne Meyer, senior VP of marketing at Pseudo.com, suggests, "If you want to see the convention as [the RNC or DNC] want you to see it, turn on CNN or C-SPAN or MSNBC. If we end up looking like that, give me a gun and shoot me in the head. We will have failed."

Pseudo may have achieved some parity with the big broadcasters by landing its own skybox, but creating truly innovative content may be a harder nut to crack. "Interactivity" is new media’s mantra, and Pseudo’s version began with the seven separate streaming video cameras it is using to cover the conventions. In Philadelphia, five were cameras provided by Be Here, mounted on poles, with user-controlled, 360-degree views. (The Democratic Party has licensed its own Be Here cameras for the convention in Los Angeles, and will provide streaming coverage via its Web site at www.dems2000.com). But how interesting is a 360-degree view of ant-sized delegates, even if you control which of those ants you can see? Could it be that network camera crews are employed for a reason?

The video content served up by Pseudo – and its skybox-mate, Salon.com – consists largely of interviews, comments, and analysis of the proceedings inside and outside the convention. How does this differ from what traditional media offers? Other than a more spontaneous, anarchistic, Web-savvy tone, the primary difference lies in text chats. Chats, in which user-submitted questions are screened by a CJ (chat jockey), are supposed to make the process more responsive and personal – in other words, interactive. With thousands of users logging on, however, the chances of having one’s question chosen for discussion might be slim.

The Web as Political Forum

While Pseudo.com and Salon.com are primarily media sites, Voter.com uses streaming media as part of a larger political mandate. Launched in January 2000, Voter.com boasts a distinguished staff and editorial board, headed by Carl Bernstein, and powerful bi-partisan sponsors like Emily’s List, the Christian Coalition, the AFL-CIO, and the American Conservative Union. The site aims to be a one-stop-shop political portal, offering an exhaustive supply of political information on subjects ranging from directions to the closest polling place to the status of key legislation.

In addition to carrying C-SPAN’s Campaign 2000, Voter.com streams a wide range of politically oriented on-demand video clips, including topical news, interviews with candidates and other public figures, campaign ads, and political analysis. Voter.com also maintains a presence at the Green, Reform, Libertarian, Republican and Democratic national conventions. Chris Lisi, media relations director at Voter.com, notes, "We are trying to become the most comprehensive political resource on the Web."

Freedomchannel.com has created a new paradigm by using streaming video as a direct link between candidates and voters. Launched a year to the day before Election Day 2000, and funded by charitable institutions like the Freedom Forum and the Pew Charitable Trust, Freedomchannel’s mandate is to provide video-on-demand of candidates speaking on the issues. Unlike C-SPAN, which limits its coverage to the presidential campaign, Freedomchannel covers state and congressional races as well. Dan Manatt, media director at Freedomchannel, notes, "It’s very difficult for some of these [congressional] candidates to get any media exposure whatsoever." Freedomchannel will record or accept tapes from any legally qualified candidate from any political party. So far, it has archived 1,500 tapes of candidate issue statements in addition to 500 tapes of campaign ads. Manatt predicts, "We’re going to have well above 3,000 tapes by Election Day."

Two Freedomchannel crews travel the country, each with a Canon GL-1, light kit and teleprompter. Notes Manatt, "The whole idea is that these are issue statements – candidate direct to the voter. We don’t want an interviewer getting in the way." The GL-1s and Freedomchannel’s format work well within the technical limitations of today’s streaming video. Manatt observes, "We use a talking-head format direct to camera – the type of production values that have worked very well on the Web. If you log on with a 56Kbps modem, I think you’ll be impressed by what you see."

While Freedomchannel does shoot video at the conventions, it’s all archived and streamed on demand. Manatt explains, "We don’t stream live. We think that’s oversold. Why watch a webcast of the convention when you can get it on C-SPAN or CNN?"

Freedomchannel tapes candidates and issue groups for free. Through its Campaign Video Link 2000, it also offers third-party sites free access to its video database through a dynamic pop-up window. Manatt says, "Free speech should be free of charge."

Economic Realities: Who Pays the Bill?

Of course, Freedomchannel can afford to take the high road, given that Yahoo! covers the massive hosting costs pro-bono. Manatt acknowledges, "Along with the foundation support, that has been the key to making it work." Without the support of Yahoo! and the foundations, Manatt admits the road ahead would be rocky. "To say we’re a non-profit political Web site is redundant," he says. "All political Web sites are non-profit. We just admit it."

Voter.com doesn’t see it that way. In its current three-tiered revenue model, candidates and organizations pay a low monthly fee to host their content on the Voter.com site, which also takes in some advertising revenue. According to Lisi, the bulk of the revenue comes from selling space in direct mail, "targeted outreach" newsletters. This has yet to be proven a winning strategy. "At this point, in the year 2000, we’re having a helluva time charging very much because they’re taking money out of their TV, print advertising, and direct mail budgets to use on something they’re still trying to figure out," notes Lisi.

Voter.com’s limited experience with live political webcasting points out the squeeze between limited revenue potential and high production costs. A recent webcast and chat with Vice President Gore cost $40,000 to produce. Even with 8,000-10,000 users signed on – gargantuan for any single webcast -- the cost per person would be $4 to $5. That would be steep for a Victoria’s Secret extravaganza, not to mention Al Gore.

Pseudo sees audience relationship-building as key to its long-term financial success, and the company meets some of its costs with advertising and sponsorship deals. For example, in exchange for running a 5 second video logo on the head of every stream, AT&T is covering Pseudo’s connectivity costs. Pseudo also cuts costs by archiving only a limited amount of footage. But as with many dot-coms, making a near-term profit isn’t Pseudo’s primary concern. Meyer observes, "There are 15,000 media watchers [at the conventions] and we are one of the big stories. They’re all coming up [to the skybox] clamoring to see this groovy thing that we’re doing. And that has made all of this worth it for us, and we think, for the industry."

Although bandwidth restrictions may limit the streaming audience this year, it is certain that streaming media will play a much more significant role in the politics of 2004. But while streaming may be the new kid on the political media block, many of the old rules still apply. Content is still the key, and much of today’s politically oriented streaming content is aimed at drawing the individual into the process, and making the process more responsive to the user. Perhaps the old bromide, "All politics is local," needs to be updated to read, "All politics is personal."